Davies, Paul;
(2023)
Section 36 of the Limitation Act 1980.
Cambridge Law Journal
, 82
(3)
pp. 402-413.
10.1017/S0008197323000429.
Preview |
Text
Davies_Section 36 of the Limitation Act 1980_VoR.pdf Download (98kB) | Preview |
Abstract
The law concerning limitation periods has long been recognised to be unsatisfactory. One area which poses particular problems concerns whether a limitation period can apply to equitable claims “by analogy” under section 36 of the Limitation Act 1980. This article considers three relatively recent decisions of the Court of Appeal – P & O Nedlloyd BV v Arab Metals Co. (The UB Tiger) [2006] EWCA Civ 1717, [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2288, The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v IGE USA Investments Ltd. [2021] EWCA Civ 534, [2021] Ch. 423 and The Claimants in the Royal Mail Group Litigation v Royal Mail Group Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1173 – which illustrate that very different approaches have been taken. It is argued that The UB Tiger was wrongly decided, or at least should be limited to specific performance, and revives calls for legislative reform.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Section 36 of the Limitation Act 1980 |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1017/S0008197323000429 |
| Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197323000429 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
| Keywords: | limitation periods; equity; specific performance; rescission; injunction |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH > Faculty of Laws |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10175546 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
